Advertisement

Forensic Science, Medicine, and Pathology

, Volume 10, Issue 1, pp 56–61 | Cite as

Evaluation of carrier RNA and low volume demineralization for recovery of nuclear DNA from human teeth

  • Denice HigginsEmail author
  • John Kaidonis
  • Grant Townsend
  • Jeremy J. Austin
Original Article

Abstract

Purpose

Teeth and bones are frequently used in the genetic analysis of degraded and ancient human and animal remains. Standard extraction methods, including most commercially available systems, may not yield sufficient DNA to enable successful genetic analysis. Addition of a carrier molecule and demineralization (via EDTA) can increase yields from samples containing limited amounts of DNA. However the benefits of carrier molecules have not been demonstrated for bones and teeth and demineralization introduces large reagent volumes that are difficult to integrate into commercial DNA extraction systems.

Methods

We compared nuclear DNA yields recovered from small samples of partially decomposed human teeth using a commercial silica-based DNA extraction system with and without the addition of carrier RNA and/or a low-volume demineralization step.

Results

DNA yield was significantly improved with demineralization, but there was no significant effect of carrier RNA. The DNA content of a sample did not influence the significance of the effect of demineralization.

Conclusion

Using a simple low-volume (1 mL) demineralization step, prior to DNA extraction with the QIAmp DNA Investigator kit (Qiagen), as little as 50 mg of tooth powder can yield more than 500 ng of nuclear DNA.

Keywords

Demineralization Carrier RNA DNA extraction Teeth 

References

  1. 1.
    Loreille OM, Diegoli TM, Irwin JA, Coble MD, Parsons TJ. High efficiency DNA extraction from bone by total demineralization. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:191–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rohland N. DNA extraction of ancient animal hard tissue samples via adsorption to silica particles. Methods Mol Biol. 2012;840:21–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kashkary L, Kemp C, Shaw KJ, Greenway GM, Haswell SJ. Improved DNA extraction efficiency from low level cell numbers using a silica monolith based micro fluidic device. Anal Chim Acta. 2012;750:127–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kishore R, Hardy R, Anderson VJ, Sanchez NA, Buoncristiani MR. Optimization of DNA extraction from low-yield and degraded samples using the BioRobot EZ1 and BioRobot M48. J Forensic Sci. 2006;51:1055–61.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gallagher ML, Burke WF, Orzech K. Carrier RNA enhancement of recovery of DNA from dilute solutions. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 1987;144:271–6.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaw KJ, Thain L, Docker PT, Dyer CE, Greenman J, Greenway GM, et al. The use of carrier RNA to enhance DNA extraction from microfluidic-based silica monoliths. Anal Chim Acta. 2009;652:231–3.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Qiagen. QIAamp DNA investigator handbook. Qiagen: Hilden Germany; 2007.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hagelberg E, Sykes B, Hedges R. Ancient bone DNA amplified. Nature. 1989;342:485.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hochmeister MN, Budowle B, Borer UV, Eggmann U, Comey CT, Dirnhofer R. Typing of deoxyribonucleic Acid (DNA) extracted from compact bone from human remains. J Forensic Sci. 1991;36:1649–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jakubowska J, Maciejewska A, Pawlowski R. Comparison of three methods of DNA extraction from human bones with different degrees of degradation. Int J Legal Med. 2012;126:173–8.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Parsons TJ, Huel R, Davoren J, Katzmarzyk C, Milos A, Selmanovic A, et al. Application of novel “mini-amplicon” STR multiplexes to high volume casework on degraded skeletal remains. Forensic Sci Int Genet. 2007;1:175–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rohland N, Siedel H, Hofreiter M. A rapid column-based ancient DNA extraction method for increased sample throughput. Mol Ecol Resour. 2010;10:677–83.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gilbert MT, Rudbeck L, Willerslev E, Hansen AJ, Smith C, Penkman KEH, et al. Biochemical and physical correlates of DNA contamination in archeological human bones and teeth excavated at Matera. Italy. J Archaeol Sci. 2005;32:785–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Higgins D, Austin JJ. Teeth as a source of DNA for forensic identification of human remains: a review. Sci Justice. 2013;53(4):433–41.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Swango KL, Timken MD, Chong MD, Buoncristiani MR. A quantitative PCR assay for the assessment of DNA degradation in forensic samples. Forensic Sci Int. 2006;158:14–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Schmittgen T. Analyzing real-time PCR data by the comparative CT method. Nat Protoc. 2008;3:1101–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gaytmenn R, Sweet D. Quantification of forensic DNA from various regions of human teeth. J Forensic Sci. 2003;48:622–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Higgins D, Kaidonis J, Austin J, Townsend G, James H, Hughes T. Dentine and cementum as sources of nuclear DNA for use in human identification. Aust J Forensic Sci. 2011;43:287–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Reddy PA, Bhavanishankar M, Bhagavatula J, Harika K, Mahla RS, Shivaji S. Improved methods of carnivore faecal sample preservation, DNA extraction and quantification for accurate genotyping of wild tigers. PLoS ONE. 2012;7(10):e46732.PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Denice Higgins
    • 1
    Email author
  • John Kaidonis
    • 2
  • Grant Townsend
    • 2
  • Jeremy J. Austin
    • 1
    • 3
  1. 1.Australian Centre for Ancient DNA, School of Earth and Environmental Sciences and Environment InstituteUniversity of AdelaideNorth Terrace, AdelaideAustralia
  2. 2.School of DentistryUniversity of AdelaideNorth Terrace, AdelaideAustralia
  3. 3.Sciences DepartmentMuseum VictoriaCarlton Gardens, MelbourneAustralia

Personalised recommendations